ICOLC 2009 Charlottesville, VA Licensing Issues – Problem Solving – Who is your problem licensing vendor?

Outline Good guys bad guys Licensing / Negotiations / Business Models Licenses  Must-have clauses  Missing clauses  New clauses to watch for Subscription agents - roles

“Problem vendors” Elsevier Springer Wiley-Blackwell APA AGU Taylor & Francis Sage AAAS ProQuest EBSCO Nature ACS + Good guys Gale Mary Anne Liebert

Wiley-Blackwell Reconciliation takes a huge amount of time New / standard model is a starting point, then customise Perpetual access to ALL content in the package during subscribed years, back to 1997 where available Concern whether access post-subscription is technically possible DD/ILL new clause allows use of electronic copy for Ariel etc Only concluded discussion (not signature) at SCELC – full collection for first year, review usage, perhaps change to sub-collection

Elsevier Dodgy negotiation tactics – delay negotiations until there is pressure to sign before satisfactorily concluded DD/ILL clause requires articles to be printed and shipped

Sage Introducing charge based on Carnegie Classification, replacing FTE Europe & Canada successful in avoiding use of Carnegie

AAAS persist in campus-based pricing, still thinking in print terms ignore size or discipline base of additional campuses prefer to use click-through agreement only – need to have properly constructed agreement for signature (examples MPI, VIVA?) Tom Ryan main consortial contact

General Open up access early or provide trials – user complaints when access cut off Move to competition between aggregators for exclusive licensing – higher prices, reduced access – notably for newspapers Does anyone have a consortial license with Readex?

New clauses to watch for The publisher does not own all the copyright so this license does not apply – see individual article & apply direct to copyright owner (authors withholding some rights?)  UChicago Press  Springer  NPG / Palgrave Macmillian  Elsevier EBSCO has a variation of the above, so its license no longer covers all its content The publisher may change the terms mid-contract, but will not provide reimbursement should the terms not be acceptable Click-through agreements (at the administrator end) which may be accepted by those without authority

Must-have clauses DD/ILL walk-in users remote access (for academic institutions) without additional unreasonable cost (for public libraries) classroom / teaching use – preferably ereserve and coursepacks, minimum linking perpetual access to subscribed content

Missing clauses Service Level Agreement – to include detail of trigger, definition of responsibility and remedy; language (TAL, Gale examples); keep clear documented history of problems; may include compensation for content loss but not service e.g. Lexis Nexis; may be included for aggregators but not journal publishers Perpetual access – doubt whether technically or organizationally possible so encourage alternatives such as Portico, LOCKSS, etc or local loading Transfer protocols – toothless, not compulsory, may not be applied to society publishers who are the main problem – follow up progress with UKSG Shibboleth-enabled – include in every discussion so that publishers realize that they need to be working on it

Missing clauses, cont. Statistics – desktop delivery to consortial manager Virtual Learning Environments – add to allowed uses Jurisdiction – all should know US State rules!

Subscription Agents - Roles Aggressively approaching publishers, consortia and customers to re-take invoice-handling from consortia Claim to be able to handle consortial package management Looking for positive stories / experience for Rick …

Actions Share with list members:  new problem clauses in licenses to watch out for  language for clauses that have been successfully renegotiated with publishers  contact names of publishers’ representatives who are prepared to discuss and/or able to authorize changes

Discussion groups led by Gillian Harrison, Diane Costello,